DISQUS

Kempton · 3 years ago

So infomercial has hit the blogs! Will they be ethically required/forced to put up a "PayPerPost" logo right next to their posts so that we know they are paid to say nice things ?

Yeah, right, “good, valuable” service! I suppose smoking help you loose weight too. Ice on the sidewalk will help you practice your balancing skill. Ice on the road will also make you a better driver.

Sorry for being nasty.

John Dowdell · 3 years ago

For what it's worth, most of those charging "fake blogs" from WalMart seem to be in error -- in ironic error, in fact.

Caches of the initial post, and the initial BusinessWeek story itself, do note that the relationship with the WalMart PR group was disclosed on the page. The blog author's closing post says that they initiated the idea, and while seeking permissions were offered subsidies, and I've seen no reasonable reason to believe this account is incorrect.

Surprisingly, the blogger pile-on over the weekend may have actually _made_ the case for PayPerPost -- we in the blogosphere told each other false & misleading stories when social effects were involved, and no money changed hands. Cash is just one type of bribe we humans take.

Those who insist that all others must divulge all their varied influences are not pursuing a sustainable path, I believe. We cannot believe everything we read. The onus is on us, the readers, to be skeptical of what we're told.

John Dowdell · 3 years ago

Sorry, I left out the piece of evidence which snapped my understanding of this event... on Sept 29 Working Families for WalMart issued a press release describing their funding of the weblog. Yahoo News still have a copy up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060929/pl_usnw/w...

"LAS VEGAS, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Working Families for Wal-Mart, a national organization with more than 150,000 volunteer members dedicated to getting the truth out about Wal- Mart's positive contributions to working families, today launched an RV tour, "Wal-Marting Across America"..."

Seeing this press release in the public record made me realize that many of the things we bloggers were telling each other were simply not correct. We didn't disclose that we hadn't read the source materials -- we didn't disclose that we were merely echoing what "a trusted source" had told us to think.

In lieu of full disclosure, we need skepticism.

C. M. Peters · 3 years ago

The link is broken for PayPayPost I believe.

Nick Dynice · 3 years ago

PayPerPost encourages meritocracy in products and services. It lets companies continue to offer products that are not remarkable enough generate real word of mouth. It lets them be lazy and continue to a "business as usual" business model without having to accept the power that real word of mouth has to offer. Do I think it is a good opportunity for PayPerPost? Yes. Just like spamming e-mail has an ROI. So, PayPerPost encourages bad behavior all around. The blogosphere’s “word of mouth on steroids” was to be the great savior of mediocre products and services.

You indicate that there is no requirement for disclosure per post. Google Ads are different in that you know it is an ad. As a user, you give credibility to Google and the advertiser for their disclosure. This is a subtle different in PayPerPost and Googles business models, but it makes all the difference. Google would be “evil” if they did not. If PayPerPost wanted to adopt Google’s “do no evil” mantra, they would require full disclosure.

Matt Marshall · 3 years ago

Thanks, fixed the link.

Frederic · 3 years ago

I wrote a bit on PayPerPost on my blog a few days back. I added a long list of PPP blogs on there to get some of them out of the woodwork and indeed, if you look at the blogs and the comments I got, most people do not disclose their affiliation. Judging from their comments, there is absolutely no understanding (at least among the vocal PPP users) of the ethical implications of their actions in the PPP crowd (they call themselves 'Posties' - I guess to look cute).

Also, I find the demographic of PPP users pretty interesting. These are not big names, these are work-at-home mothers, ex-US Army soldiers trying to pay for their divorce etc. I somehow consider them to be on par with those people who fall for work-at-home scams - just a bit more technology savvy.

Jeff H · 3 years ago

Agreed with the comments above, imagine if Nike was releasing a new shoe when the internet wasn’t around. Would a newspaper allow Nike to write and publish whatever type of review they wanted? Probably not, because it would have been unethical, this is same basic premise we are seeing here. Expect in this situation it’s much easier for one person to compromise their ethics than a group of people, even more so a company with a board of directors. I would encourage bloggers to proclaim authentic reviews by adding a badge on their site that represents honest posting.

The last thing we need is larger blur between propaganda and media. Fox News already is doing enough of this.

Jeff H · 3 years ago

Comments above refers to Nick's comment

Jeremy Pepper · 3 years ago

@John D
I wrote on the Walmart issue from a PR angle, and you bring up some good points on bloggers not digging further into the stories to get the real, or full, story - something I brought up in my post as well, and which is rampant in the blogosphere.

But, I just read the press release - twice - and no where is it disclosed that the bloggers were paid, that the travel was paid for (gas, etc.), nor that Wal-Mart itself is the biggest funder of Working Families for Wal-Mart.

That info is all gleaned from the first BusinessWeek story - http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/con... .

In full disclosure, yes, I am in PR at a competing firm. But, for full disclosure, it should also be noted that where you work is also repped by Edelman.

George Nimeh · 3 years ago

To John Dowdell:

You are mistaken and continue to post false information.

Why do you continue to post false information about the WFWM press release here (and on your own blog a few days ago) when you *know* that the press release was issued 2 days AFTER the publication of the Business week story exposing Wal-Mart's fraud?

If I didn't know better, I'd begin to wonder. You thinking about leaving San Jose for Bentonville?

~G~

John Dowdell · 3 years ago

Well, I might be a fake person, but if I am, then I assure you I do not know it.... ;-)

For a timeline, my understanding is that the weblog launched on Sept 27, the WalMart group issued a press release on Sept 29, and I still see the BusinessWeek article with a publication date of Oct 8:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/con...

I understand that publication dates are not always exact, but that's the actual evidence I see... if you know how I might be seeing it incorrectly then that would help my understanding, thanks.

Then I'm looking at this site, and its disclosure, and wondering how skeptical to be... what do you make of this?
http://www.thewritingonthewal.net/

Matt Marshall · 3 years ago

I think Business Week dates are always a week later than the date that the actual publication appears.

John Dowdell · 3 years ago

Hi Matt, true, BusinessWeek might be giving inaccurate dating information on their article... if they actually went online on Oct 1 then they would have followed the disclosing press release, and if George's assertion that the article was "published two days before the press release" held true, then Pallavi would have managed to get the blog into BusinessWeek on Sept 27, its first day, which would be quite interesting in itself.

Either way, the claim "they did not disclose" does not hold up.

I've noticed quite a bit of vitriol on this issue, and it's looking more and more like it's we in the blogosphere who were overly credulous, rather than some apocryphal RV owner who was led astray. What do you think...?

John · 2 years ago

What is the difference between a blogger giving his opinion on something [paid or not] or Nike taking out a full page ad in a newspaper and the type reads 'best shoe ever' or 'bringing basketball to new heights'? isn't it all opinion anyways?? I don't see the harm in the website, disclosure or not. I think its a great idea for a advertiser or blogger. Finally something that is helping on both ends. Maybe I am just "like all the others" online, but thats what I think about it. [this comment was not influenced in anyway other than by my own thoughts]

Teldelojerb · 2 years ago

The adynamic car lease prices magician seriously polar its hind on chrysler afresh since relentless consumers necktie shifted to phs affluent cars with real mileage.
http://www.erobees.biz/antique-car-auction/map.... All she firmly do is ask, and i'll car lease it to her.

Retro Cars · 2 years ago

One of these days I have to go to the Barrett Jackson auction. It's not far from my house, and I love the cars I see on TV. I always wondered how much I would have gotten for my old convertible if I sold it through them.

Regina Thomas · 2 years ago

I have seen a lot of inaccurate writing by those who are claim to be professional writers. Inaccurate in as far technology and other areas the writers claim to have expertise in. And no, I did not think it part of a disinformation campaign. Some may claim that knowledge is power and lets ensure as many internet users as possible, remain in the dark. No, I thought it poor research-- by someone with a journalism degree.

Now "bloggers" [non-professional or non-degreed writers whichever the case may be] are writing for advertisers-- something professional writers have been doing for awhile- and they are crying foul?

I am not upset because I have recently dabbled in the pay per post earnings game myself-- I can assure I could be doing something else. I am a little amazed at this old post because it seems full of hypocrisy.

Regina Thomas
QiSoftware

Mar Matthias Darin · 1 year ago

I've written about PayPerPost and why it will kill any blog here. PayPerPost is definately something that should be avoided.